Answer:
Consider, for example, the categorical syllogism: No geese are felines. ... Clearly, “Some birds are not felines” is the conclusion of this syllogism. The major term of the syllogism is “felines” (the predicate term of its conclusion), so “No geese are felines” (the premise in which “felines” appears) is its major premise.
Explanation:
Answer:
The Miller Test is the primary legal test for determining whether expression constitutes obscenity. It is named after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. California (1973). The Miller test faced its greatest challenge with online obscenity cases. In Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002), a case challenging the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act, several justices questioned the constitutionality of applying the local community standards of Miller to speech on the Internet. In this photo, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU Ann Beeson gestures during a news conference outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 2, 2004 in Washington. The ACLU claimed COPA violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. They challenged the law on behalf of online bookstores, artists and others, including operators of Web sites that offer explicit how-to sex advice or health information. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court’s ruling that COPA did not pass the strict scrutiny test used to judge obscenity cases. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, used with permission from the Associated Press)
Explanation:
d
Answer:
d) US Department of Agriculture
Explanation:
it is a WIC program but it is managed by the US department of Agriculture's food and nutrition services
Answer:
Hsu was indicted for violating the Economic Espio- nage Act by conspiring to steal corporate trade secrets for an anti-cancer drug. The defense requested a copy of the trade secret documents. The government contended that the defense did not need access to the documents except under supervision of the judge. The defense maintained a right of full access to the documents so the defense of impossibil- ity could be established, meaning Hsu could not steal trade secrets that did not exist. District court agreed with the defense; government appealed. Must the defendant be allowed full access to trade secrets that are a key part of a case? [U.S. v. Hsu, 155 F. 3d 189, 3rd Cir. (1998)]
Explanation:
Answer: regulation
Explanation:
Citizens are allowed to sue federal administrative agencies who are empowered to make specialized rules and regulations that would enable them to properly enforce the mandate given to them by Congress.
Of course one cannot just sue at the first instance, there must have been a series of appeals to various bodies within this agency to repeal the rule or regulation that is causing grief. If those bodies refuse and it is found that the agency did not act in good faith in making the rule, the court will hear an appeal on the matter without exhaustion.
